To Michael...problem with boolean...!?!

 From:  Michael Gibson
252.4 In reply to 252.3 
Ok, some good news - I have been able to tune up some things to make this work for the next beta. I think this tune-up will help fix several boolean problems.

Here is a view from the side:

The distance shown in red there is pretty small, about 0.02 units. There was a problem where intersections that were close to other edges by about this distance would confuse the booleans and make it think that those areas should be merged together into one edge.

This was because of too loose of a tolerance value for the edges involved - once I added a mechanism to tune up the tolerance values on edges it allows the boolean to function properly.

This was kind of a general problem for any boolean that had an intersection that came to within maybe 0.04 units or so of another edge (without actually touching the edge).

I have to test this for a while to make certain that it doesn't mess up anything else, but I think it should be a good general improvement overall. There are still other things I'm working on for the next beta, so I don't think the next beta will be out until next week sometime.

I've attached the resulting model here. This was very helpful to get a problem example that had simple shapes in it, thanks!

- Michael